well, duh, of course it's not THAT Kirk. if it was, it would be called DUMBKIRK.

seriously tho, yeah, looks pretty good. get a big Saving Private Ryan vibe off of it,which is very much a good thing. even some of the actors look almost the same (but they'd be 20 years older so it can't be... maybe their sons?).

Drew McWeeny wrote:There is a trap built into franchise movies, and part of what defines Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker is the way he not only understands that trap, but has actively worked to evade it. Only by embracing Batman, one of the biggest and most commercially viable properties in the world, was he able to buy the freedom to make giant-scale movies his way about the things that interest him. Three movies about a superhero with daddy issues means you get to make experimental films about historical stories with no easy narrative hook. That’s Hollywood math at its finest.

It is important because there are few people who could get something like DUNKIRK made, and even fewer who could make it this way, with this level of technical skill. There are plenty of war movies, and certainly since Saving Private Ryan, we’ve seen a different kind of war on film, more graphic and experiential. Even so, it seems like it’s hard for filmmakers to shake the narrative conventions that define the genre, and one of the biggest problems is the way writers and directors lean on stereotype to help define character amidst the mayhem.

I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).

God, whhhhyyy have you gotta be so petty about a little thing like time jumping? All films do this, and stop talking about this war film too much like a "Oooooh it's a Noooolaaaannn film!". This film should stand on it's own right in how you judge it, or at least judge it as an important war film about an important event. Judge it for that merit not on how it compares to previous films by this guy which are much different with what they are about, that's such an irrelevant point.

Fucking hell with this way of comparative thinking you'd give Uwe Boll a fucking Oscar if he made a half decent film.

Just talk about this war film for all the other things it has to offer, don't waste 4 odd lines on how it compares to other unsimilar films just based on bloody time representation! THERE'S MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT!

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:God, whhhhyyy have you gotta be so petty about a little thing like time jumping? All films do this, and stop talking about this war film too much like a "Oooooh it's a Noooolaaaannn film!". This film should stand on it's own right in how you judge it, or at least judge it as an important war film about an important event. Judge it for that merit not on how it compares to previous films by this guy which are much different with what they are about, that's such an irrelevant point.

I don't think it's all that petty, it's how the entire film is structured. I was trying to make a larger point about how Nolan is considered a cerebral filmmaker, but his work is often "challenging" on a very superficial level. You're right that each movie should have a chance to stand on its own merits, and I tried to watch Dunkirk with that in mind. But it's also hard not to consider how it stands in the context of his entire body of work. I think both are true.

Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).

i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.

i think the key to making it work was letting the audience know right at the beginning that these stories were happening at different rates of speed, and they did that. i could see some of the audience not understanding that despite being told, or coming in late and missing those title cards and being confused, but fuck em, if you can't be bothered to make it to the film in time you deserve to be confused.

overall i thought it was a good film, not a great film. it's a bit of a trying experience, it throws you right into things from the start, and with the insistent music that never lets up, the film never really has a chance to breathe, and watching it that tension is hard to endure nonstop for the entire runtime. the characters are sketched in at best, you hardly get a sense of who any of these guys are outside of the immediate events of the film, but i'm ok with that. not every film needs to be about what's going on inside people's heads or how they got to be who they are or whatever, sometimes its ok just to have a film that shows things happening, which is all this film is really trying to do, to show how the Dunkirk evacuation happened from a few different perspectives. it works on that level, but it's kind of a shallow level that's inherently limiting. so if you want a deep examination of the effects of war, or the meaning of it all, or what it says about humanity etc you'll have to look elsewhere.

Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).

i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.

Yeah, I agree. I probably should have mentioned in my initial comment that, despite there being less of a reason for the timeline in this movie to be all wonky, it actually worked better for me than the other two did. I like that Nolan decided to tell the Dunkirk story through a series of almost-vignettes that logistically had to take place over different stretches of time, rather than trying to shoehorn each into a more traditional war-movie formula (war-mula?)

Ribbons wrote:I thought this was a pretty good movie. But if I may play Peven's Advocate for one moment here, this is the third (non-Batman) film in a row where Christopher Nolan arbitrarily fucked around with time distortion to create the illusion of narrative complexity. At least with the other two, there was a plot point ostensibly driving the decision: with Interstellar, relativity, with Inception, "dream-time." But with this one, he just went "Fuck it, all of these stories are happening at different rates of speed because why not." (If you want to lump his brother and fellow Memento alum Jonathan Nolan into the argument, Westworld was perhaps the most guilty of this sin, where several big twists throughout the season were that some of the subplots you were watching were happening in the past, for no particular reason).

i actually liked how the three main threads of the stories take place over different timeframes, and then all come together in the end. i think it allows each of those stories to progress at its own proper pace, without having to be rushed or drawn out to fit a single arbitrary timeframe for the whole film. the air war portion of the story, for instance, would have either had to been padded unnecessarily to go along with the rest of the story, or it would have ended up being shoehorned in at the very end of the film. by drawing out that single hour over the course of the film, and not being constrained to a different timeline, it worked better for that particular story, whereas the boat portion (1 day) and the beach portion (1 week) needed more time to tell their stories.

Yeah, I agree. I probably should have mentioned in my initial comment that, despite there being less of a reason for the timeline in this movie to be all wonky, it actually worked better for me than the other two did. I like that Nolan decided to tell the Dunkirk story through a series of almost-vignettes that logistically had to take place over different stretches of time, rather than trying to shoehorn each into a more traditional war-movie formula (war-mula?)

I got this Blu Ray for Christmas and made the mistake of asking the wife if she wanted to watch it. We could never find time. So today I said "fuck it." I waited until everyone was at school, turned on the projector, and turned the speakers up as loud as comfortably could.

Fuck..... this was an amazing experience.

When Branagh sees the civilian boats..... easily up there near the top as one of my favorite moments on film. Ever. The entire movie up to that point was just constantly beating the viewer over the head, showing them how horrible and hopeless this situation was. But not only were we seeing how horrible it was, but the soundtrack ramped up the tension to an infinite degree. And in the moments leading up to this scene, Zimmer's music was so nerve-wracking....and when Branagh lowered the binoculars the music resolved into a beautiful, bright, major chord that gave me chills and tears as the line of civilian boats was shown.

I loved this film.

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

Ribbons wrote:I'm just jealous that you have a screen and projector in your home, you bastard

Don't be - unless you are in an apartment/condo/duplex/etc., then you're kind of screwed. But if you are in a house and have the space (large room with a decent-sized wall or a basement), you can do it, too. I spent about a year researching/planning based off of designs in the home theater section of avsforum.com. It was a matter of looking at all these other peoples' theaters (that were WAY more elaborate and expensive than I could do/afford) and finding things that I knew I could do. I'm no skilled carpenter, but I'm not completely useless with tools, either. If nothing else, you could always get a simple drop-down screen. As far as a projector goes, 1080p projectors are getting cheaper by the day and 4k projectors are almost reasonable.....almost (I'm hoping to upgrade in a year). And for sound, you can go ultra-simple and just use a cheap soundbar while you save up for something more elaborate.Point being - don't write off a home theater/projector as being some elite, out-of-reach thing. It's not!!!

Peven wrote:I watched a home film-strip edition on my projector.....it just sucks when the "dings" to turn to the next slide start coming too fast to keep track of

My god.....I had forgotten about those!!

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

This is NOT the movie to watch while distracted. I watched it yesterday on my iPad in my kitchen while doing other stuff. I had to restart it three times because I thought I missed the "real" beginning... didn't realize that it just jumps right in to the action. I didn't really dig the back and forth of the timelines, but it wasn't really that jarring.

Overall I liked it (hard to not be impressed with films like this, shot so nicely), but I can't see myself ever revisiting it. It almost felt to me like 3-4 side stories, with no real main plot. I'm sure that's what it was all about from Nolan's perspective, but it was a little odd to me.

And at the end I literally yelled at my ipad "land the fucking plane already Tom Hardy!". It went on and on and on and on and on....

A film - shot so nicely, and with such big visuals that Nolan wanted it in Imax theatres, the director who, you know, objects to movies going to Netflix instead of cinema as it ruins the big visual experience.

A film - shot so nicely, and with such big visuals that Nolan wanted it in Imax theatres, the director who, you know, objects to movies going to Netflix instead of cinema as it ruins the big visual experience.

A film - shot so nicely, and with such big visuals that Nolan wanted it in Imax theatres, the director who, you know, objects to movies going to Netflix instead of cinema as it ruins the big visual experience.